PURPOSE: To evaluate whether patients' treatment preferences, characteristics, or symptomatic response to assessment moderated the effect of the McKenzie method for acute low back pain (LBP). METHODS: This study involved a secondary analysis of a previous RCT on the effect of adding the McKenzie method to the recommended first-line care for patients with acute non-specific LBP. 148 patients were randomized to the First-line Care Group (recommended first-line care alone) or the McKenzie Group (McKenzie method in addition to the first-line care) for a 3-week course of treatment. The primary outcome was pain intensity at 3 weeks. The ability of six patient characteristics to identify those who respond best to McKenzie method was assessed using interaction terms in linear regression models. RESULTS: The six investigated potential effect modifiers for response to the McKenzie method did not predict a more favorable response to this treatment. None of the point estimates for effect modification met our pre-specified criterion of clinical importance of a 1 point greater improvement in pain. For five of the six predictors, the 95% CI did not include our criterion for meaningful clinical improvement. CONCLUSION: We were unable to find any clinically useful effect modifiers for patients with acute LBP receiving the McKenzie method.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To evaluate whether patients' treatment preferences, characteristics, or symptomatic response to assessment moderated the effect of the McKenzie method for acute low back pain (LBP). METHODS: This study involved a secondary analysis of a previous RCT on the effect of adding the McKenzie method to the recommended first-line care for patients with acute non-specific LBP. 148 patients were randomized to the First-line Care Group (recommended first-line care alone) or the McKenzie Group (McKenzie method in addition to the first-line care) for a 3-week course of treatment. The primary outcome was pain intensity at 3 weeks. The ability of six patient characteristics to identify those who respond best to McKenzie method was assessed using interaction terms in linear regression models. RESULTS: The six investigated potential effect modifiers for response to the McKenzie method did not predict a more favorable response to this treatment. None of the point estimates for effect modification met our pre-specified criterion of clinical importance of a 1 point greater improvement in pain. For five of the six predictors, the 95% CI did not include our criterion for meaningful clinical improvement. CONCLUSION: We were unable to find any clinically useful effect modifiers for patients with acute LBP receiving the McKenzie method.
Authors: Mark J Hancock; Christopher G Maher; Jane Latimer; Andrew J McLachlan; Richard O Day; Reece A Davies Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: Rob J E M Smeets; Saskia Beelen; Mariëlle E J B Goossens; Erik G W Schouten; J André Knottnerus; Johan W S Vlaeyen Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: Mark J Stewart; Chris G Maher; Kathryn M Refshauge; Rob D Herbert; Michael K Nicholas Journal: Eur J Pain Date: 2008-01-28 Impact factor: 3.931